onhold
onhold
onhold

Well, shit. What am I supposed to do for righteous indignation now? We both feel like the other candidate has problems that the other side won’t acknowledge, and that our candidate is better. That’s elections, I guess. No foul there.

Ok. My bad.

Well of course you can. And in the case of Verizon, you might have a meritorious claim if they produced a product that lent itself to anonymous harassing of others. There have probably already been lawsuits based on the same fact pattern. Regarding Coors, you could, but you would likely get thrown out on summary

That’s funny, that sounds like a compromise position. He had higher priorities than being anti-Iraq war, but was forced to vote for or against a funding bill that has always passed with 90%+, against his principles? Who made him do that?

Then how do you explain the times he didn’t vote to fund?

Regarding gun manufacturers, I agree with you more than I disagree. The problem I have is granting special status where they may not be sued. Fast food joints have been sued for making kids fat, and the suits get thrown out, exotic car companies get sued when some lunatic gets behind the wheel and goes 110 down city

Ha! I agree. Leave it to us Democrats to risk wandering in the desert for 40 years over whether or not 12 or 15 is sufficient. The bonus irony is that neither probably are, or both probably are, depending upon where you live.

Maybe. But for crying out loud, maybe it should. Ok, fine, if he doesn’t lose NY by a landslide, let’s see how PA and the rest of them go the next week, but at some point, you’re either helping or hurting.

“The fact remains that they ARE playing by the same tort rules as all other manufacturers”

I don’t hate Sanders, Longsnake. I hate the fact that your side of the aisle presents him as Christ incarnate without acknowledging his flaws, or even worse, defending the indefensible hill.

So you’re saying that he did vote yes, jamoke? Even though the bills were assured passage? Sounds like compromising your ideals for political expediency to me.

Oh, I don’t think you’re right about that at all. The punitive effect alone was worth a good bit. As your source indicates, smoking levels dropped (some of it being pre-MSA, doesn’t de-value the post-MSA stuff, smarty), and those warnings on the packages?

That’s too bad. It was a thing of beauty.

Reagan, like some of his predecessors, had Billy Graham as an adviser, and made many, many references to God, assumedly a Christian God, in speeches. This doesn’t make him religious, but it doesn’t make him atheist, either.

Well now you’re arguing the merits of the case. The point is, they got an UNPRECEDENTED (except for the f’ing railroads) exemption from tort liability. You can’t let a jury decide the merits of the case, because it’s not even allowed in court.

Ha! An obvious and long-overdue reply!

Then what’s the problem with applying the same tort rules to them that we apply to everyone else?

And they got their asses sued off for it, and paid billions in settlements. Let the gun manufacturers take the same medicine.

Can’t advertise on TV? Tell that to Henry arms. I’ve watched this ad a dozen times at least. You have a statute you want to cite?

Was about to point this out. Thank you, counselor.